(07-27-2020 02:46 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 02:07 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  JRsec might be William Faulkner typing from beyond the grave.

He reminds me of Vanderbilt—Classy, Southern, and he’s been around for a while and gained some real knowledge and wisdom over the years.

Well put. JRsec is the only person on this board who can take Quo to task and have Quo actually enjoy it.

I wouldn't say the only person, not do I always enjoy his complaints, LOL. But yes, sometimes I do. JR is one of the few here who has been watching CFB longer than i have, so I appreciate his perspective.

(07-28-2020 06:12 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 08:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 05:54 AM)schmolik Wrote:  I would say by 2011 I could see the Big East being a "Big Mess". Once they invited TCU that was the last straw. I begged the ACC and Big Ten to "rescue" Pitt, Syracuse, and UConn. https://bleacherreport.com/articles/8440...-and-uconn

A rather prescient post back then, as the ACC did invite Syracuse and Pitt just a week after you made it.

I always thought TCU was a bold and daring choice that clearly pushed the football needle for a very brief moment, though I know it annoyed the basketball fans. And iirc, the vote wasn’t unanimous, which, at the time didn’t seemed to project the dysfunction it probably should have to me.

But, “last straw?” I thought the Villanova plan was pretty horrific and damaging.

Yes, I am a Georgetown fan and thus have always had a hoops-first view of the Big East, but I do not recall the TCU addition bothering me. Hoops was very strong at the time so adding TCU in no way diluted that. And given how high they were riding on the gridiron at the time, I thought it was a good move to strengthen the football side.

So I do not in any way agree that adding TCU was a kind of "last straw". If anything on balance it was a good move.

(07-27-2020 11:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 10:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 07:35 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(07-24-2020 09:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-23-2020 09:38 PM)Mav Wrote:  A&M has had Manziel and has been mediocre otherwise.

A&M has averaged 8.3 wins per season in the SEC, and their worst season has been 7 wins with a best of 11, and no losing seasons. They have gone to a bowl all eight seasons with a 5-3 bowl record.

In their last eight seasons in the Big 12, TAMU averaged 6.75 wins a year, a low of 4 wins and a high of 9, and three of the eight seasons were losing seasons, they went 1-5 in bowls during that time**.

So I think it's fair to say they have improved since joining the SEC.


** One thing that seems to have helped with bowl records is the change in conference. TAMU was 0-3 vs SEC teams in bowl games as a member of the Big 12, it is 3-1 in bowl games vs the Big 12 as a member of the SEC.

It helps when the SEC commish gets to hand pick the matchups for bowl season after the Sugar Bowl selection.

Well, the SEC is often at a disadvantage in the non-NY6 bowls, because it usually puts multiple teams in the NY6, which means weaker teams get bumped up to better non-NY6 bowls. For example, last year the Big 12 put two teams in the NY6, the SEC put four teams in. So that means down the bowl ladder, if a bowl is supposed to be "SEC #3 vs Big 12 #3", what happens is it ends up being SEC #5 vs Big 12 #3. That has happened a lot in the CFP and BCS era.

(07-27-2020 10:14 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 11:13 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 10:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 07:35 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  It helps when the SEC commish gets to hand pick the matchups for bowl season after the Sugar Bowl selection.

Well, the SEC is often at a disadvantage in the non-NY6 bowls, because it usually puts multiple teams in the NY6, which means weaker teams get bumped up to better non-NY6 bowls. For example, last year the Big 12 put two teams in the NY6, the SEC put four teams in. So that means down the bowl ladder, if a bowl is supposed to be "SEC #3 vs Big 12 #3", what happens is it ends up being SEC #5 vs Big 12 #3. That has happened a lot in the CFP and BCS era.

(07-27-2020 08:22 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-26-2020 10:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  So you are saying my writing on contemporary culture advocates for a black radical dragon devouring situational humor while "I'm 41 and drinking in a honkey tonk just kicking Hippie's asses and raising hell!" What an eclectic creative dark bastard you must think I am!

Indeed. It's the most high of compliments I have given to a poster on this board.

And I find that odd since I don't edit for style, barely edit for grammar, and mostly edit because the program here can't keep up with keystrokes at 100 or so wpm and so frequently drops a letter, or letters, or just doesn't read the endings of contractions.

And here I thought the Judy Collins approach wasn't dark at all as I was just looking "at clouds from both sides now."

I'll tell you what's dark Bill. Americans are having to take a long hard look at what we have been becoming because right now the illusion of sport has been removed from our field of vision and as the hangover of a distracted mind lifts, as it does after the revelry of a drunken night with a strange woman, and we are seeing the faces next to us without makeup, with slobber on the pillowcase, and getting that first waft of morning breath, and asking that ubiquitous question, "What the hell happened here?" And then the disgust and self loathing sets in as to how we could have let ourselves go so badly as to arrive at this point.

The cold wet rag of our actual status in the world is about to slap our sleepy faces to jolt us completely to our senses and before our day is over we will turn again to that all knowing unseen entity most commonly called God, and ask in all humility, "Pleas help me get through this!"

And if that happens Bill, maybe we return to some form of tolerance if for no other reason than the commonality of our transgressions and the absolute and universal need of grace.

Under our nuclear umbrella we have had an orgy of self indulgence that denied the fragility of our way of life in a hungry and hostile world all the while believing that what was unthinkable to use could somehow save us. How deluded is that?

Football has been an image of our strength and it is now being trashed by circumstances beyond our control on the micro and macro levels. On the micro level it has become a medium for unwanted reminders of social issues, and on a macro level it has been shut down by a force we cannot see leaving us to ponder the intent. But in both cases it crashes the illusion of strength and vitality as few things could.

Realignment has been fascinating to watch sociologically. It contains multiple fan theories as to why their program is being promoted, demoted, or destroyed. And virtually none of these theories addresses the simple fact that corporations saw a great way to get their names in front of millions of Americans and since they took it over and realized its profit potential and its depth and breadth of reach they have been commercializing it so that it would become an added voice to the very things people wished to escape.

Cold wet rag meets sleepy hungover face.

And somewhere in the back of my mind I hear my father's voice when I was 10 years old on a Saturday morning when he literally would toss that cold wet rag onto my sleepy face and would say, "Off your butt and on your feet! Out of the shade and into the heat! Let's go! We have work to do!"

Your reference, JRsec, to the hypothetical night of revelry followed by a morning of unease reminds of the time I awoke with a woman I once dated many years ago — both of us grossly hungover. She remarked that my definition-lacking visage reminded her of that of a Sesame Street muppet; my neuroses, that of Woody Allen; my effete manner, that of late and legendary British actor John Williams (who offers a stellar performance in Alfred Hitchcock's classic Dial M for Murder); my fondness of the bottle, that of former Pogues front man Shane MacGowan. She then — in an almost disgusting manner — said bluntly, "I don't even know why I date you."

I paused, wryly smiled, and quipped, "Because I can off the top of my head, and with ease, quickly create and recite a limerick that references foot juggling, America's most handsome skycrapers and a vegetarian diet — and make it sound alternatingly poetic yet sexually disturbing?"

Then she paused herself and coyly smiled ... and within 30 seconds or so, my fair lady and I undertook a "conference realignment" of a different type.

(Nice job with the Judy Collins reference, too.)

Obviously you were resigned to a congress of loutish abandon. Let it be noted that a missionary man should never engage a woman with ugly feet.

But sincerely, kudos for making such a unique approach a cunning yet lingual success! Truly word power made easy!

(07-28-2020 08:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 02:46 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 02:07 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  JRsec might be William Faulkner typing from beyond the grave.

He reminds me of Vanderbilt—Classy, Southern, and he’s been around for a while and gained some real knowledge and wisdom over the years.

Well put. JRsec is the only person on this board who can take Quo to task and have Quo actually enjoy it.

I wouldn't say the only person, not do I always enjoy his complaints, LOL. But yes, sometimes I do. JR is one of the few here who has been watching CFB longer than i have, so I appreciate his perspective.

He's a key reason I read this board.

(07-28-2020 08:25 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-28-2020 06:12 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 08:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 05:54 AM)schmolik Wrote:  I would say by 2011 I could see the Big East being a "Big Mess". Once they invited TCU that was the last straw. I begged the ACC and Big Ten to "rescue" Pitt, Syracuse, and UConn. https://bleacherreport.com/articles/8440...-and-uconn

A rather prescient post back then, as the ACC did invite Syracuse and Pitt just a week after you made it.

I always thought TCU was a bold and daring choice that clearly pushed the football needle for a very brief moment, though I know it annoyed the basketball fans. And iirc, the vote wasn’t unanimous, which, at the time didn’t seemed to project the dysfunction it probably should have to me.

But, “last straw?” I thought the Villanova plan was pretty horrific and damaging.

Yes, I am a Georgetown fan and thus have always had a hoops-first view of the Big East, but I do not recall the TCU addition bothering me. Hoops was very strong at the time so adding TCU in no way diluted that. And given how high they were riding on the gridiron at the time, I thought it was a good move to strengthen the football side.

So I do not in any way agree that adding TCU was a kind of "last straw". If anything on balance it was a good move.

You know how I am with teams west of the Mississippi, especially in a conference called the Big "East". When Louisville, Cincinnati, DePaul, and Marquette joined the Big East, I thought they were too far "west". In addition to the conference being stretched geographically when the Big East added the Conference USA teams, the conference had 16 teams which IMO was too many (I had discussed that in the link too). The more teams you have, you play each other less often. In addition, these teams were added while Temple was getting booted out of the Big East. I was against the Big East ever since they passed on Temple and invited Rutgers.

I guess my ideal "Big East" would be the original Big East + Temple or just the original Big East without the Conference USA teams, Rutgers, or western crap. Football "ruined" the Big East IMO. That's why I felt Pittsburgh, Syracuse, and Connecticut had to leave.

(07-28-2020 10:56 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(07-28-2020 08:25 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-28-2020 06:12 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 08:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 05:54 AM)schmolik Wrote:  I would say by 2011 I could see the Big East being a "Big Mess". Once they invited TCU that was the last straw. I begged the ACC and Big Ten to "rescue" Pitt, Syracuse, and UConn. https://bleacherreport.com/articles/8440...-and-uconn

A rather prescient post back then, as the ACC did invite Syracuse and Pitt just a week after you made it.

I always thought TCU was a bold and daring choice that clearly pushed the football needle for a very brief moment, though I know it annoyed the basketball fans. And iirc, the vote wasn’t unanimous, which, at the time didn’t seemed to project the dysfunction it probably should have to me.

But, “last straw?” I thought the Villanova plan was pretty horrific and damaging.

Yes, I am a Georgetown fan and thus have always had a hoops-first view of the Big East, but I do not recall the TCU addition bothering me. Hoops was very strong at the time so adding TCU in no way diluted that. And given how high they were riding on the gridiron at the time, I thought it was a good move to strengthen the football side.

So I do not in any way agree that adding TCU was a kind of "last straw". If anything on balance it was a good move.

You know how I am with teams west of the Mississippi, especially in a conference called the Big "East". When Louisville, Cincinnati, DePaul, and Marquette joined the Big East, I thought they were too far "west". In addition to the conference being stretched geographically when the Big East added the Conference USA teams, the conference had 16 teams which IMO was too many (I had discussed that in the link too). The more teams you have, you play each other less often. In addition, these teams were added while Temple was getting booted out of the Big East. I was against the Big East ever since they passed on Temple and invited Rutgers.

I guess my ideal "Big East" would be the original Big East + Temple or just the original Big East without the Conference USA teams, Rutgers, or western crap. Football "ruined" the Big East IMO. That's why I felt Pittsburgh, Syracuse, and Connecticut had to leave.

And that is why the current Big East is better set up for long-term stability and success. I like the model. And though I would have preferred the BE add Saint Louis and Dayton to get to 12 and call it a day, I fully understand why UConn (a rather "non Big East-ish" large public school with DI football) was appealing given its history with the four long-time BE programs in the Northeast and the one (GU) in the Mid-Atlantic.

(07-28-2020 10:56 AM)schmolik Wrote:  I guess my ideal "Big East" would be the original Big East + Temple or just the original Big East without the Conference USA teams, Rutgers, or western crap. Football "ruined" the Big East IMO. That's why I felt Pittsburgh, Syracuse, and Connecticut had to leave.

Well yeah I would have loved the Golden Age of the 1980s, with that lineup of teams and as just a hoops league, to go on forever. But you can't always get what you want.

It’s too bad this year’s tournament was canceled. Had Dayton made a deep run it would have put pressure on the Big East to add them. Had they won, it would have been near impossible to deny them.

(07-26-2020 11:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-26-2020 10:58 AM)AntiG Wrote:  Rutgers wasn't a disaster immediately - was actually successful in their first year in the B1G due to Schiano's recruits becoming upperclassmen, which included knocking off Michigan, losing to Penn State late in the 4th off of a pick-six after a brilliant defensive job all game long, destroying Indiana, an insane comeback win against Maryland, and beating down UNC in the Quick Lane Bowl. The issue afterwards was that Schiano had left for the NFL the year before, and not only did they lose some big-time verbal commits once he left like Saquon Barkley, but those upperclassmen that had winning seasons in 2013 and 2014 started graduated while Flood struggled with recruiting as well as the academic violation he committed. Then the Ash disaster hiring afterwards, plus the armed robbery involving 5 first and second year players.

I could put together a nice paragraph like this explaining why USF has been lousy at times during the past seven seasons as well, including right now, but the bottom line is ...... lousy. Applies to Rutgers too.

my point was, Rutgers was not a case of immediate failure after moving conferences. They were a case of moving, being successfully competitive early on, and then taking a big fat dump afterwards due to a combination of cheapness and scandals.

(07-29-2020 08:41 AM)AntiG Wrote:  

(07-26-2020 11:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-26-2020 10:58 AM)AntiG Wrote:  Rutgers wasn't a disaster immediately - was actually successful in their first year in the B1G due to Schiano's recruits becoming upperclassmen, which included knocking off Michigan, losing to Penn State late in the 4th off of a pick-six after a brilliant defensive job all game long, destroying Indiana, an insane comeback win against Maryland, and beating down UNC in the Quick Lane Bowl. The issue afterwards was that Schiano had left for the NFL the year before, and not only did they lose some big-time verbal commits once he left like Saquon Barkley, but those upperclassmen that had winning seasons in 2013 and 2014 started graduated while Flood struggled with recruiting as well as the academic violation he committed. Then the Ash disaster hiring afterwards, plus the armed robbery involving 5 first and second year players.

I could put together a nice paragraph like this explaining why USF has been lousy at times during the past seven seasons as well, including right now, but the bottom line is ...... lousy. Applies to Rutgers too.

my point was, Rutgers was not a case of immediate failure after moving conferences. They were a case of moving, being successfully competitive early on, and then taking a big fat dump afterwards due to a combination of cheapness and scandals.

Rutgers was on the decline prior to your move to the B10. You were 6-7 in your final year in the AAC. You actually had a better record the next year in the B10. The loss of Schiano was definitely a bigger factor than changing conference patches on your jerseys.

(07-29-2020 08:41 AM)AntiG Wrote:  

(07-26-2020 11:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-26-2020 10:58 AM)AntiG Wrote:  Rutgers wasn't a disaster immediately - was actually successful in their first year in the B1G due to Schiano's recruits becoming upperclassmen, which included knocking off Michigan, losing to Penn State late in the 4th off of a pick-six after a brilliant defensive job all game long, destroying Indiana, an insane comeback win against Maryland, and beating down UNC in the Quick Lane Bowl. The issue afterwards was that Schiano had left for the NFL the year before, and not only did they lose some big-time verbal commits once he left like Saquon Barkley, but those upperclassmen that had winning seasons in 2013 and 2014 started graduated while Flood struggled with recruiting as well as the academic violation he committed. Then the Ash disaster hiring afterwards, plus the armed robbery involving 5 first and second year players.

I could put together a nice paragraph like this explaining why USF has been lousy at times during the past seven seasons as well, including right now, but the bottom line is ...... lousy. Applies to Rutgers too.

my point was, Rutgers was not a case of immediate failure after moving conferences. They were a case of moving, being successfully competitive early on, and then taking a big fat dump afterwards due to a combination of cheapness and scandals.

Well, if you look at that 2014 year in the B1G, the 8-5 year, that record doesn't stand up to much scrutiny.

First, the record was 7-5 if we subtract out a win vs an FCS team. And the B1G record was 3-5.

Second, the win over Michigan looked nice when it happened but Michigan was 5-7 that year. Overall, the 8 wins came against teams that were 3-9, 8-5 (Navy), 3-9, 5-7, 4-8, 7-6, and 6-7. That's two wins over teams with winning records, and those two teams lost 5 and 6 games respectively. The close almost-woulda game vs Penn State was against a 7-6 Penn State team still reeling from the Sandusky scandal.

Overall, Rutgers was outscored by 45 points that season, very hard to do when going 8-5. That's because they generally didn't win big over the bad teams they played, but got absolutely cold-cocked by the good teams they played (they lost by 42, 39, 37, and 18 to the four good B1G opponents).

I'm not sure how you go 8-5 when your average scoreline is 26 - 30 against you, but it was a weird year in which Michigan and Penn State were bad. They would both get good again soon enough while Rutgers would not.

Yeah, even if I want to consider that 8-5 season well, I can’t get past that non-conference part outside of Navy, which, crazy as it was, they managed to pull off...in Annapolis. But Tulane, WSU, and Howard? If I can’t overlook UNC in a game that had no point during bowl season, then that putrid non-conference can’t be overlooked either.

Now, UMD basketball...seem more in the thick of it in the B1G than the ACC it seemed.

Going back to the OP, Louisville stands out to me as a success. They haven't won the conference, but then again Florida State (2014) and Clemson (2015-present) have been national title contenders during Louisville's stint in the ACC, and it's not like anyone else has come close to winning the ACC, either. Louisville had an anomaly of a year in '18. Otherwise, they're winning 8 or 9 games a year. And, of course, they had their first Heisman winner in Lamar Jackson.

Outside the P5, there are quite a few who have improved in their new conferences.

Nebraska seemed to already be fading during the 1996-2010 Big 12 era.

In the Big 6/7/8 Nebraska won or shared 41 titles (Oklahoma had 34, everyone else totaled 28 including a shared 1907 title belonging to Iowa).

From 1959, the year Oklahoma St joined, onward there were only 4 times where Nebraska or Oklahoma didn’t win at least a share of the Big 8 title (1960, 1961, 1989, 1990)

You’d think the Big 12 North would have been the Nebraska show with Oklahoma moving to the South with the Texas school but they only won the North 6 times in 15 seasons.

(07-29-2020 07:33 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Nebraska seemed to already be fading during the 1996-2010 Big 12 era.

In the Big 6/7/8 Nebraska won or shared 41 titles (Oklahoma had 34, everyone else totaled 28 including a shared 1907 title belonging to Iowa).

From 1959, the year Oklahoma St joined, onward there were only 4 times where Nebraska or Oklahoma didn’t win at least a share of the Big 8 title (1960, 1961, 1989, 1990)

You’d think the Big 12 North would have been the Nebraska show with Oklahoma moving to the South with the Texas school but they only won the North 6 times in 15 seasons.

I'm going to nitpick a little here. Nebraska won the 1997 national title and made the 2001 national championship game. They shouldn't have been in the '01 game, but still, they were contenders. So their fade came later than 1996.

Yeah, the “Nebraska fall” doesn’t start until that infamous 62-36 Black Friday Colorado game on ABC. That was Nebraska’s catastrophic event they’d never recover from.

They were still going strong through the Eric Crouch era. Nebraska was ranked #1 for awhile in 2000 and had a #1 vs #3 game with Oklahoma in 2001.

Speaking of which, ESPNU recently reaired Nebraska’s Independence Bowl against Ole Miss from 2002. ESPN graphics were still using Ole Miss’ Colonel Reb. Ole Miss handed Nebraska their 7th loss of the year — and 9th since Black Friday the year before — after Nebraska was undefeated that Thanksgiving.

(07-29-2020 07:44 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Yeah, the “Nebraska fall” doesn’t start until that infamous 62-36 Black Friday Colorado game on ABC. That was Nebraska’s catastrophic event they’d never recover from.

They were still going strong through the Eric Crouch era. Nebraska was ranked #1 for awhile in 2000 and had a #1 vs #3 game with Oklahoma in 2001.

And Big XII championship participants in 2006, 2009, and 2010. And while the northern division couldn’t keep up with the south, winning a division is still something.

They faded in the Big XII, but that generalization looks only slightly better with age. Still very relevant in the conference, and the potential was known.

What hurts Nebraska now is being in a far weaker division in the Big Ten than the Big XII was, or maybe about the same, but being even less relevant. I mean, heck, 5-4 versus Northwestern since joining the conference, and how close those games are. It says a lot about both programs and where they’ve come since the 90’s. And it reflects worse on the Huskers. I mean, Iowa and Wisconsin both own them out there, and the others have found ways (note the plural) to get by them. Heck, when you compare that to Penn State joining the conference...what, Indiana has only won once in that time, 1-22, and it took a sanctioned PSU team for Indiana to finally get one by? I think that kind of dominance doesn’t mean Nebraska has to be title-worthy every year, but still demonstrates consistency. Nebraska doesn’t exhibit that at all now.

Nebraska was viewed as a leader in the Big 12, and was clearly the school in the North. Now it's just another school in the B16 West division. They will get competitive again, just no where near where they once were 25 years ago, hell maybe not what they were just 15 years ago. But atleast they are cashing in checks.

BTW is any school more in need for ou to join the B16 than Nebraska?

If you could get an expanded playoff together, and beyond eight teams, you can motivate conferences to also consider beefing up the schedules and not fear as much what a death march schedule can have on post-season hopes. It’s where basketball has had it right, where a school may not be punished with an okay record but high SOS.

Oddly, I wish they’d shift Nebraska east and give them that brutal schedule because it’s more like what they used to see in the Big 8/12 collectively. I’ve wondered if that kind of schedule could motivate the recruitment there. And, maybe shift a Rutgers or Indiana west to mingle with schools who are more consistently inconsistent, like Purdue, Minnesota, Illinois, and Northwestern.